Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[wiploc]

[Replying to KenRU]

Hi Guys,

I have a few questions for you that are convinced that God is nonexistent.

That's me!

1. Is it impossible for the God of the Bible to exist?

Which one? The one who can do anything, or the one who can't defeat iron chariots? The one who is perfectly just, or the one who is merciful? The one who is love, or the one who tortures people forever?

No god who entails a contradiction can exist. That's impossible. Many Christian gods (or, versions of the Christian god) are contradictory. They cannot exist.

But many Christians worship gods who aren't contradictory. They manage this by not believing everything the bible says. By cherry-picking the gospels.

I'm not going to say they are wrong in that. The alternative is to either believe in contradiction, or to quit believing at all.

The answer to your question is that contradictory gods (of the bible or otherwise) are impossible, and other gods (of the bible or otherwise) are not.

2. Is it impossible for the Bible to be revelation from God that it claims ito be?

I don't believe it, but it's not logically impossible. Of course, if the bible is a revelation from a god, then that god has to be one of the possible gods. Thor, maybe?

3. Could the God of the Bible reveal things to us in such a way that we could be absolutely certain of them?

A magic-throwing god could do that, yes.

4. Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?

Solipsism is boring.

Finally, If I could prove to your satisfaction that God is really true, would you trust and worship Him?

If you prove it exists, I will believe it exists.

If you prove it is trustworthy (unlike most versions of the bible god) I will trust it.

I don't understand worship, so I don't have an opinion about that.

[liamconnor]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

For my part Zzz, I am waiting for (and pushing, through my OPs) skeptics to understand what evidence actually is. For instance, I am not even remotely confident that skeptics know how history works, how to assess ancient documents, how to distinguish literary genres of the Bible.

Until I see even one skeptic up to date with these, there is no point in arguing with them.

[Danmark]

For my part Zzz, I am waiting for (and pushing, through my OPs) skeptics to understand what evidence actually is. For instance, I am not even remotely confident that skeptics know how history works, how to assess ancient documents, how to distinguish literary genres of the Bible.

Until I see even one skeptic up to date with these, there is no point in arguing with them.

I might just as easily ask, "Until I see evidence you have the slightest clue what you are talking about, there is no point in arguing with you."

I've seen many who have excellent knowledge of history, the theory of history, how to assess the reliability of ancient documents and the various literary genres of the Bible. They are generally called well educated non theists and include lawyers, scientists, professors and other members of academia.

[Zzyzx]

.

For my part Zzz, I am waiting for (and pushing, through my OPs) skeptics to understand what evidence actually is. For instance, I am not even remotely confident that skeptics know how history works, how to assess ancient documents, how to distinguish literary genres of the Bible.

Exactly what knowledge of “how history works� is required to discuss rationally

1. Jesus was anything more than human?

2. Humans possess a soul?

3. An afterlife exists?

4. Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred?

5. Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described?

6. God intercedes in human affairs or life events?

7. Bible writers were actually inspired by God?

Is the “genre� of Bible stories or church dogma discussing such things to be taken as folklore and/or mythology? OR are those matters presented as literal truth?

Until I see even one skeptic up to date with these, there is no point in arguing with them.

It may be wise to avoid debating issues for which one cannot offer compelling reasoning based on verifiable evidence.

[liamconnor]

.

For my part Zzz, I am waiting for (and pushing, through my OPs) skeptics to understand what evidence actually is. For instance, I am not even remotely confident that skeptics know how history works, how to assess ancient documents, how to distinguish literary genres of the Bible.

Exactly what knowledge of “how history works� is required to discuss rationally

1. Jesus was anything more than human?

2. Humans possess a soul?

3. An afterlife exists?

4. Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred?

5. Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described?

6. God intercedes in human affairs or life events?

7. Bible writers were actually inspired by God?

Is the “genre� of Bible stories or church dogma discussing such things to be taken as folklore and/or mythology? OR are those matters presented as literal truth?

Until I see even one skeptic up to date with these, there is no point in arguing with them.

It may be wise to avoid debating issues for which one cannot offer compelling reasoning based on verifiable evidence.

1. Jesus was anything more than human?

I am assuming that if it can be demonstrated by historical canons that the most plausible explanation (the one that answers the most historical questions while raising the least) for the early Christian movement is that Jesus was indeed bodily raised from death into a new mode of bodily life, that would lay some substantial bedrock for demonstrating that he was something more than human, and performed deeds involving the supernatural. I admit that there is not a direct logical move from "resurrected" to "divine"; but it lays the groundwork.

The question is, do skeptics know when an historical theory is plausible or not? Do they know when they are no longer acting as rational historians, but as prejudiced philosophers, who really don't care what historical explanation there is, just as long as there is some historical explanation: aliens will do as well as anything else?

I have not found so. It is astonishing to me how many skeptics here do not even have a well-thought out theory as to how the early Christian movement began--they fumble around with "maybe this happened, or maybe that happened"; that of those who do have a semi (and that is gracious of me) theory, it betrays a complete lack of familiarity with Jewish and Graeco-Roman custom of that period.

After my short time on this forum, my overwhelming impression is that all the skeptics here are philosophical skeptics, and really shouldn't be engaging in historical analysis. Their time would best be spent (and those of us who are more interested in history would be least wasted) on philosophical threads; topics like "why the laws of nature are immutable" or "morality--evidence of God?" and what not.

So until skeptics drop claims like "eyewitness testimony is not evidence", there is no point in debating historical evidence.

I am happy to debate philosophical hangups.[/i]

[Danmark]

After my short time on this forum, my overwhelming impression is that all the skeptics here are philosophical skeptics, and really shouldn't be engaging in historical analysis. Their time would best be spent (and those of us who are more interested in history would be least wasted) on philosophical threads; topics like "why the laws of nature are immutable" or "morality--evidence of God?" and what not.

So until skeptics drop claims like "eyewitness testimony is not evidence", there is no point in debating historical evidence.

In addition to your other false assumptions and overly broad generalizations, your claim that so called 'skeptics' on this forum claim "eyewitness testimony is not evidence", [sic] is unfounded. Tho' you refer to "all skeptics," can you name even one here who makes the absurd claim that "eyewitness testimony is not evidence?"

Eyewitness testimony is evidence. There is, or should be, no debate about that. The problem for your wild claim is that there IS no "eyewitness" testimony regarding most if not all of your claims about the Bible's historicity in general, or the resurrection in particular. What the NT presents is a series of largely contradictory accounts by anonymous authors relying on 3d hand hearsay (or worse), gossip, rumor and tradition recorded decades after the alleged events they refer to.

This is not "eyewitness testimony." It is not competent evidence at all. It would certainly not be accepted in a court of law. Historians, of course, necessarily rely on information that would not be admitted in court, but they also evaluate the weight or quality of that information, just as a judge or jury must do.

When the reporter of an event is anonymous and is not an eyewitness, when the events are recorded decades after they supposedly happened, when they are written by people who have an obvious bias and are motivated to persuade rather than to be accurate, when they concern events that are fantastic, a historian takes note of those factors in deciding what weight to give the truth of the matter asserted by the anonymous and biased source.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 444 by liamconnor]


Moderator Comment

There's no need for generalizing about the forum or the people here. Best to just debate the issues.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 444 by liamconnor]

I am assuming that if it can be demonstrated by historical canons that the most plausible explanation (the one that answers the most historical questions while raising the least) for the early Christian movement is that Jesus was indeed bodily raised from death into a new mode of bodily life,

How exactly do you prove this historically? You can have thousands of documents (theoretically) that say Jesus rose from the dead, but we have no actual physical evidence that such a thing is even possible, just what thousands of people believed. How do you prove historically that Jesus magicked up fish and loaves, or cast out demons?

that would lay some substantial bedrock for demonstrating that he was something more than human, and performed deeds involving the supernatural.

No. It would only, at best, demonstrate that the people who wrote these documents believed he was supernatural and did supernatural things. People at a modern faith healing rally can write articles saying that the preacher did supernatural healing, but that doesn't mean that he actually DID do supernatural healing!

It is astonishing to me how many skeptics here do not even have a well-thought out theory as to how the early Christian movement began

I don't know about others but for me, I'm not concerned with actually going out and doing the hard work to 'prove' one of the many proposed naturalistic explanations true. I'm more focused on looking at the supernatural explanations proposed by folks such as yourself and exposing the myriad holes in them. The burden of proof is on you. In fact, that's what this looks like to me, a shifting of the burden of proof. Rather than actually provide the evidence to support your supernatural explanation, you're trying to demand that skeptics (those people who don't believe you) come up with evidence for naturalistic explanations, and if they fail, somehow the supernatural explanation you favour stands by default?

[Bust Nak]

The question is, do skeptics know when an historical theory is plausible or not? Do they know when they are no longer acting as rational historians, but as prejudiced philosophers, who really don't care what historical explanation there is, just as long as there is some historical explanation: aliens will do as well as anything else?

May I suggest that you too are a prejudiced philosopher, just bias in the other direction? Who qualify as "rational historians" is determined by your initial philosophy. Your philosophy says the eyewitness accounts trumps physical evidence, our philosophy says the physical evidence trumps eyewitness accounts.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 448 by Bust Nak]

Your philosophy says the eyewitness accounts trumps physical evidence, our philosophy says the physical evidence trumps eyewitness accounts.

Our philosophy says the lack of physical evidence trumps eyewitness accounts.

Fixed that for you.